June 25, 2017

That Democrats lack "a message" could be a good thing

Nearly every Democrat these days is consumed by the thought that Democrats as a whole lack a message, which is rather bizarre, since that is the message. By that I mean, every Democratic candidate in 2018 will need a message tailored specifically to his or her district or state; that beyond the umbrella message of Donald Trump and his Republican Congress as unAmerican dolts, Democrats are in need of 435+ messages, which are impossible to define in the aggregate.

The idea of running a blue message in a purple district is nearly as balmy as running a red message in a blue district. Sandersesque purity and progressive consistency are incompatible with winning nationwide, hence the insistence by some on the left that Democrats run A Message is an invitation to political suicide. Still, the one underlying, and indeed unifying, message can be that Trump & Co. is a thoroughgoing catastrophe for America and its values — which it unquestionably is.

That Democrats should otherwise run a veritable cacophony of messages — a blue one in blue districts, a purple one in purple districts, even a red one in red districts — would be less a sign of party chaos than a return of Democratic tradition. Prior to its intensifying progressivization, the Democratic Party had its liberal wing, its moderate wing, and its conservative wing. Democrats squabbled like a dysfunctional family, but by God they held a congressional majority. They won — and that, some Democrats need reminding, is the brutally singular goal of 2018.

WaPo's Dan Balz notes that "Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next year’s midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it." That, I would add, is the pity — that some Democratic doubt is probably valid. It's a pity because opposition to Trump should be enough. After all, who or what could be worse than Trump and Trumpism?

Nevertheless, if Democrats are to err, they must err on the side of a cliché, which is to say, on the side of caution. "Trump may be nuts enough to blow up the world. But the Democrats are nuts if they think his crazy is enough to save them," writes the eternally snarky Maureen Dowd. About this, I myself possess some doubt. By the end of 2018 — more than another year of the eternally reckless Trump — the Republican base may be languishing in near comatose disaffection. Democrats will be juiced, and the nation at large will be on the edge of revolution. Again, another year of Trump should have that effect. But, given the dilapidated state of American democracy, Democrats shouldn't count on it. There, Dowd may be snarky, but correct.

As are strategists Bruce Reed and Rahm Emanuel, who write in The Atlantic: "Winning hotly contested swing seats … requires candidates who closely match their districts — even if they don’t perfectly align with the national party’s activist base." While this is blazingly obvious to all those experienced in the numerous yet unavoidable disappointments of political reality, the party's activist base is, regrettably, not among them. The latter dream of a universal progressive message, which for Democrats would be disastrous. The Message should instead be: Look to your district.

Comments

That Democrats lack "a message" could be a good thing

Nearly every Democrat these days is consumed by the thought that Democrats as a whole lack a message, which is rather bizarre, since that is the message. By that I mean, every Democratic candidate in 2018 will need a message tailored specifically to his or her district or state; that beyond the umbrella message of Donald Trump and his Republican Congress as unAmerican dolts, Democrats are in need of 435+ messages, which are impossible to define in the aggregate.

The idea of running a blue message in a purple district is nearly as balmy as running a red message in a blue district. Sandersesque purity and progressive consistency are incompatible with winning nationwide, hence the insistence by some on the left that Democrats run A Message is an invitation to political suicide. Still, the one underlying, and indeed unifying, message can be that Trump & Co. is a thoroughgoing catastrophe for America and its values — which it unquestionably is.

That Democrats should otherwise run a veritable cacophony of messages — a blue one in blue districts, a purple one in purple districts, even a red one in red districts — would be less a sign of party chaos than a return of Democratic tradition. Prior to its intensifying progressivization, the Democratic Party had its liberal wing, its moderate wing, and its conservative wing. Democrats squabbled like a dysfunctional family, but by God they held a congressional majority. They won — and that, some Democrats need reminding, is the brutally singular goal of 2018.

WaPo's Dan Balz notes that "Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next year’s midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it." That, I would add, is the pity — that some Democratic doubt is probably valid. It's a pity because opposition to Trump should be enough. After all, who or what could be worse than Trump and Trumpism?

Nevertheless, if Democrats are to err, they must err on the side of a cliché, which is to say, on the side of caution. "Trump may be nuts enough to blow up the world. But the Democrats are nuts if they think his crazy is enough to save them," writes the eternally snarky Maureen Dowd. About this, I myself possess some doubt. By the end of 2018 — more than another year of the eternally reckless Trump — the Republican base may be languishing in near comatose disaffection. Democrats will be juiced, and the nation at large will be on the edge of revolution. Again, another year of Trump should have that effect. But, given the dilapidated state of American democracy, Democrats shouldn't count on it. There, Dowd may be snarky, but correct.

As are strategists Bruce Reed and Rahm Emanuel, who write in The Atlantic: "Winning hotly contested swing seats … requires candidates who closely match their districts — even if they don’t perfectly align with the national party’s activist base." While this is blazingly obvious to all those experienced in the numerous yet unavoidable disappointments of political reality, the party's activist base is, regrettably, not among them. The latter dream of a universal progressive message, which for Democrats would be disastrous. The Message should instead be: Look to your district.